Frustrated with the buggy forums
-
If you can do a better job then start you own site, in the mean time stop fuckking moaning about this one. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
If you can do a better job then start you own site, in the mean time stop f***king moaning about this one.
No. And I'm not f*cking moaning. So be a good sport and f*ck off.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot.
Um no. A stress test tool can help spot concurrency issues, which is what I bet it going on. Jeremy Falcon
-
Paul Watson wrote:
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot.
Um no. A stress test tool can help spot concurrency issues, which is what I bet it going on. Jeremy Falcon
Uh, no, that isn't a stress test tool, that is an acceptance test tool. Stress test simply tests response and other rates within acceptable thresholds, hence stress. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Uh, no, that isn't a stress test tool, that is an acceptance test tool. Stress test simply tests response and other rates within acceptable thresholds, hence stress. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doWell the tools I've used then included more than one type of test. Either way, a concurrency issue can be fixed. CP has been letting it go on for quite some time. Jeremy Falcon
-
fat_boy wrote:
If you can do a better job then start you own site, in the mean time stop f***king moaning about this one.
No. And I'm not f*cking moaning. So be a good sport and f*ck off.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
Michael P Butler wrote:
No piece of software of any complexity can have zero bugs.
Yes it can! My pet hate is when people make the above statement, it implies that you expect your code to be buggy and already are thinking up excuses for the errors! The main reason for 'buggy' code is cost, to properly design, write and test costs time and money. I used to write software that had to run 24/7, it can be done.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
Ted Ferenc wrote:
The main reason for 'buggy' code is cost, to properly design, write and test costs time and money
While it may be possible for a complex piece of code to have 'zero bugs', the real question to ask is, is the cost of reducing the number of bugs to zero worth it? First, you have to define what a bug is. Does the site have to behave identically in all browsers? How about at all resolutions? Is it really worth making sure that the differences between Netscape 3.3 and 3.31 are handled correctly? Is that 2 pixel rendering error you noticed in IE 6.0, that isn't in IE 6.0 SP1, worth dealing with? Oh, crap. All this browser-specific stuff has now made the site slow, so you have to fix that too. It comes down to a balancing act between functionality, performance, and what you have resources to deal with. C'mon. This is a programmer's site. In the time I've been here, it's increased its membership ten-fold. The number of concurrent users has gone up almost the same amount. Chris and company have done a bang-up job keeping things running in spite of the manifold challenges to running a site like this. Running the best damn Windows programming site on the net paints a big fat target on your back. Cut the folks some slack.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Michael P Butler wrote:
No piece of software of any complexity can have zero bugs.
True, but there's been outstanding bugs here for a while that haven't been addressed. I don't think finding them is the issue; not taking care of them is. Jeremy Falcon
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will. According to side comments I've read in other places in the forums, Chris has been working on a new version of the site, apparently using .Net 2.0. It could be the reason some of the bugs in the current stuff hasn't received any attention is, he's waiting for the new version to address them.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Ted Ferenc wrote:
The main reason for 'buggy' code is cost, to properly design, write and test costs time and money
While it may be possible for a complex piece of code to have 'zero bugs', the real question to ask is, is the cost of reducing the number of bugs to zero worth it? First, you have to define what a bug is. Does the site have to behave identically in all browsers? How about at all resolutions? Is it really worth making sure that the differences between Netscape 3.3 and 3.31 are handled correctly? Is that 2 pixel rendering error you noticed in IE 6.0, that isn't in IE 6.0 SP1, worth dealing with? Oh, crap. All this browser-specific stuff has now made the site slow, so you have to fix that too. It comes down to a balancing act between functionality, performance, and what you have resources to deal with. C'mon. This is a programmer's site. In the time I've been here, it's increased its membership ten-fold. The number of concurrent users has gone up almost the same amount. Chris and company have done a bang-up job keeping things running in spite of the manifold challenges to running a site like this. Running the best damn Windows programming site on the net paints a big fat target on your back. Cut the folks some slack.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
what a bug is
To me it is the code not behaving to what the spec says it should do, if CP forums are are IE only then Opera bugs don't count. My 1st reply was in jest, I classsify CP a 'happy hackers' site, bits get added because it seemed a good idea at the time, some work some don't, but I aint complaining.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
-
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will. According to side comments I've read in other places in the forums, Chris has been working on a new version of the site, apparently using .Net 2.0. It could be the reason some of the bugs in the current stuff hasn't received any attention is, he's waiting for the new version to address them.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
It could be the reason some of the bugs in the current stuff hasn't received any attention is, he's waiting for the new version to address them.
Perhaps, but they've been outstanding for months. And, just becuase you're working on a new version doesn't mean you have to let the existing site slip away. Just my 2 cents. Jeremy Falcon
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
I'm not f*cking moanig
OK, you arent being fucked up the arse and moaning in pleasure, but you are moaning about this site. Like I wrote, do a better job or shut the fuck up. So, be a sport and shut the fuck up! Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
OK, you arent being f***ed up the arse and moaning in pleasure
Oh I wouldn't know about that kind of moaning. Please don't explain it to me.
fat_boy wrote:
but you are moaning about this site.
It's called complaining. Ever heard of complaining? Have you ever come to this forum to complain about something you don't like or agree with? Or was it just moaning? Wait, I'm starting to understand. When you come here, it's because your boyfriend finally took his dick out of your mouth, freeing you up to moan online instead. So you have this dillusion that most people come to this forum to moan, like you do.
fat_boy wrote:
Like I wrote, do a better job or shut the f*** up.
No. I'll speak my mind any time I want to, asshole. You're no one to silence me. This site has a few stupidly annoying bugs and I'm making a point that they should be given the attention they deserve. If you want to live quietly with those bugs because you're too inferior to make a better site, that's you. I'm different. Of course with enough time and resources just about anyone could come up with a better site. But who the hell wants to? Except for annoying pricks like you, I like this place and I want it to work like it's supposed to. Now run along, your boyfriend must be waiting.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, you arent being f***ed up the arse and moaning in pleasure
Oh I wouldn't know about that kind of moaning. Please don't explain it to me.
fat_boy wrote:
but you are moaning about this site.
It's called complaining. Ever heard of complaining? Have you ever come to this forum to complain about something you don't like or agree with? Or was it just moaning? Wait, I'm starting to understand. When you come here, it's because your boyfriend finally took his dick out of your mouth, freeing you up to moan online instead. So you have this dillusion that most people come to this forum to moan, like you do.
fat_boy wrote:
Like I wrote, do a better job or shut the f*** up.
No. I'll speak my mind any time I want to, asshole. You're no one to silence me. This site has a few stupidly annoying bugs and I'm making a point that they should be given the attention they deserve. If you want to live quietly with those bugs because you're too inferior to make a better site, that's you. I'm different. Of course with enough time and resources just about anyone could come up with a better site. But who the hell wants to? Except for annoying pricks like you, I like this place and I want it to work like it's supposed to. Now run along, your boyfriend must be waiting.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
It could be the reason some of the bugs in the current stuff hasn't received any attention is, he's waiting for the new version to address them.
Perhaps, but they've been outstanding for months. And, just becuase you're working on a new version doesn't mean you have to let the existing site slip away. Just my 2 cents. Jeremy Falcon
I'm suggesting that it could be a supporting tool problem (data base, or ASP) that causes the misplaced forum post bug. Perhaps replacing the tool in the new version will help fix the problem, whereas coding around it in the current environment simply isn't cost effective. Note: The following comment does not apply to your original post, Jeremy. My objection to the raft of complaints posted lately stems more from the note of entitlement they seem to include. People act like The Code Project is a public utility from which they have a God-given right to a certain level of service. They forget that it is a self-supporting business proposition, from which I doubt Mr. Maunder and friends make sufficient profit to compensate them for putting up with all the bitching.
Software Zen:
delete this;